This paper investigates the ability of artificial neural networks to judge the grammatical acceptability of a sentence, with the goal of testing their linguistic competence. We introduce the Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (CoLA), a set of 10,657 English sentences labeled as grammatical or ungrammatical from published linguistics literature. As baselines, we train several recurrent neural network models on acceptability classification, and find that our models outperform unsupervised models by Lau et al. (2016) on CoLA. Error-analysis on specific grammatical phenomena reveals that both Lau et al.’s models and ours learn systematic generalizations like subject-verb-object order. However, all models we test perform far below human level on a wide range of grammatical constructions.

/pdf/neural-network-acceptability-judgments-29tbzxmqj1.pdf

Neural Network Acceptability Judgments

Recent work has improved our ability to detect linguistic knowledge in word representations. However, current methods for detecting syntactic knowledge do not test whether syntax trees are represented in their entirety. In this work, we propose a structural probe, which evaluates whether syntax trees are embedded in a linear transformation of a neural network’s word representation space. The probe identifies a linear transformation under which squared L2 distance encodes the distance between words in the parse tree, and one in which squared L2 norm encodes depth in the parse tree. Using our probe, we show that such transformations exist for both ELMo and BERT but not in baselines, providing evidence that entire syntax trees are embedded implicitly in deep models’ vector geometry.

A Structural Probe for Finding Syntax in Word Representations

Afterword The impact of “The cognitive basis for linguistic structures”

Pre-training by language modeling has become a popular and successful approach to NLP tasks, but we have yet to understand exactly what linguistic capacities these pre-training processes confer upon models. In this paper we introduce a suite of diagnostics drawn from human language experiments, which allow us to ask targeted questions about information used by language models for generating predictions in context. As a case study, we apply these diagnostics to the popular BERT model, finding that it can generally distinguish good from bad completions involving shared category or role reversal, albeit with less sensitivity than humans, and it robustly retrieves noun hypernyms, but it struggles with challenging inference and role-based event prediction -- and in particular, it shows clear insensitivity to the contextual impacts of negation.

What BERT Is Not: Lessons from a New Suite of Psycholinguistic Diagnostics for Language Models

Pre-training by language modeling has become a popular and successful approach to NLP tasks, but we have yet to understand exactly what linguistic capacities these pre-training processes confer upon models. In this paper we introduce a suite of diagnostics drawn from human language experiments, which allow us to ask targeted questions about the information used by language models for generating predictions in context. As a case study, we apply these diagnostics to the popular BERT model, finding that it can generally distinguish good from bad completions involving shared category or role reversal, albeit with less sensitivity than humans, and it robustly retrieves noun hypernyms, but it struggles with challenging inferences and role-based event prediction -- and in particular, it shows clear insensitivity to the contextual impacts of negation.

What BERT is not: Lessons from a new suite of psycholinguistic diagnostics for language models

RNN language models have achieved state-of-the-art perplexity results and have proven useful in a suite of NLP tasks, but it is as yet unclear what syntactic generalizations they learn. Here we investigate whether state-of-the-art RNN language models represent long-distance filler–gap dependencies and constraints on them. Examining RNN behavior on experimentally controlled sentences designed to expose filler–gap dependencies, we show that RNNs can represent the relationship in multiple syntactic positions and over large spans of text. Furthermore, we show that RNNs learn a subset of the known restrictions on filler–gap dependencies, known as island constraints: RNNs show evidence for wh-islands, adjunct islands, and complex NP islands. These studies demonstrates that state-of-the-art RNN models are able to learn and generalize about empty syntactic positions.

/pdf/what-do-rnn-language-models-learn-about-filler-gap-23ltc8syds.pdf

What do RNN Language Models Learn about Filler-Gap Dependencies?

We investigate the extent to which the behavior of neural network language models reflects incremental representations of syntactic state. To do so, we employ experimental methodologies which were originally developed in the field of psycholinguistics to study syntactic representation in the human mind. We examine neural network model behavior on sets of artificial sentences containing a variety of syntactically complex structures. These sentences not only test whether the networks have a representation of syntactic state, they also reveal the specific lexical cues that networks use to update these states. We test four models: two publicly available LSTM sequence models of English (Jozefowicz et al., 2016; Gulordava et al., 2018) trained on large datasets; an RNN Grammar (Dyer et al., 2016) trained on a small, parsed dataset; and an LSTM trained on the same small corpus as the RNNG. We find evidence for basic syntactic state representations in all models, but only the models trained on large datasets are sensitive to subtle lexical cues signaling changes in syntactic state.

/pdf/neural-language-models-as-psycholinguistic-subjects-4xd94crm3p.pdf

Neural language models as psycholinguistic subjects: Representations of syntactic state.

Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are the state of the art in sequence modeling for natural language. However, it remains poorly understood what grammatical characteristics of natural language they implicitly learn and represent as a consequence of optimizing the language modeling objective. Here we deploy the methods of controlled psycholinguistic experimentation to shed light on to what extent RNN behavior reflects incremental syntactic state and grammatical dependency representations known to characterize human linguistic behavior. We broadly test two publicly available long short-term memory (LSTM) English sequence models, and learn and test a new Japanese LSTM. We demonstrate that these models represent and maintain incremental syntactic state, but that they do not always generalize in the same way as humans. Furthermore, none of our models learn the appropriate grammatical dependency configurations licensing reflexive pronouns or negative polarity items.

RNNs as psycholinguistic subjects: Syntactic state and grammatical dependency.

We deploy the methods of controlled psycholinguistic experimentation to shed light on the extent to which the behavior of neural network language models reflects incremental representations of syntactic state. To do so, we examine model behavior on artificial sentences containing a variety of syntactically complex structures. We test four models: two publicly available LSTM sequence models of English (Jozefowicz et al., 2016; Gulordava et al., 2018) trained on large datasets; an RNNG (Dyer et al., 2016) trained on a small, parsed dataset; and an LSTM trained on the same small corpus as the RNNG. We find evidence that the LSTMs trained on large datasets represent syntactic state over large spans of text in a way that is comparable to the RNNG, while the LSTM trained on the small dataset does not or does so only weakly.

Neural Language Models as Psycholinguistic Subjects: Representations of Syntactic State

RNN language models have achieved state-of-the-art perplexity results and have proven useful in a suite of NLP tasks, but it is as yet unclear what syntactic generalizations they learn Here we investigate whether state-of-the-art RNN language models represent long-distance filler-gap dependencies and constraints on them Examining RNN behavior on experimentally controlled sentences designed to expose filler-gap dependencies, we show that RNNs can represent the relationship in multiple syntactic positions and over large spans of text Furthermore, we show that RNNs learn a subset of the known restrictions on filler-gap dependencies, known as island constraints: RNNs show evidence for wh-islands, adjunct islands, and complex NP islands These studies demonstrates that state-of-the-art RNN models are able to learn and generalize about empty syntactic positions

Takashi Morita

Papers

What do RNN Language Models Learn about Filler-Gap Dependencies?

Neural language models as psycholinguistic subjects: Representations of syntactic state.

RNNs as psycholinguistic subjects: Syntactic state and grammatical dependency.

Neural Language Models as Psycholinguistic Subjects: Representations of Syntactic State

What do RNN Language Models Learn about Filler-Gap Dependencies?